French 'Millionaire's Tax' Gets Constitutional Go-Ahead

The US Chamber of Commerce should be calling, writing, and making offers to all of those companies to come set up shop here.

France is full of idiots.

- - - Updated - - -

Why $50?

Why not $40?

 

Stop with the subjective non-sense.

Labor rates are dictated by the labor market.

It is not a hard concept to understand.

It is 100% envy that makes people ignore the market to find a villain to blame.

 

Whats sad is that they are incapable of seeing that their own policies and agendas lead to their self perceived need for additional action.

 

Yup - More government involvement is the solution to the problems that more government involvement created in the first place.

It's the very definition of insanity...

 

Isn't that why doctors get paid so much? To cover the costs of their training? Certainly what is said on this site regularly. Slow witted indeed, training is an investment in one's self is it not?

You are absolutely bewildered aren't you? I made a statement, that in my opinion nobody is worth over $50 an hour. I didn't pas a law or suggest legislation. Try to stay on topic. To counter you would provide evidence why I am wrong, so far all I am getting is lip service and HUH UH!

Not at all you are the one who is lost. More money comes when it is earned, not before. The pay is $50, the incentive can be higher, all you have to do is earn it, then you can "deserve" it. What are you reading, or more to the point, reading into?

Who's eisner? Can you show me an exact quote from me where I complained. If he invested $50 and made a billion legally without paying off public officials or breaking the laws everybody else has to follow, why would there be reason to complain? Again what are you reading into my statements? Obviously not what I am writing.

Do you need a moment to argue with yourself, cuz I didn't dictate anything. Just offered an opinion.

Nope their base pay is work completed, profit sharing comes when the company is in the green, if it is the red they could lose their job. Hopefully the company will have the sense to reevaluate the situation and get rid of the problem. Usually an incompetent management staff.

Do stock holders have to do that? Basically, and again this is my opinion, employees are investing their time, experience, and their abilities so if the company does well they will too. Am I going to fast for you?

That's your idiocy. Do you need time to argue with yourself?

Again if you go back and reread what I said you might get it, but at this point I doubt it. You are confusing pay and investments. Sorry don't know how to help you. Do you think there are no such thing as profit sharing?

They must have been. Every day they were at work they cost the company money. What does one have to do with the other?

Plus the incentives programs I have already explained? Is it just a reading comprehension skill problem with you? Cuz you don't seem to grasping the things I am clearly saying. If not you are just arguing with yourself.

Unnecessary employees yes so they could offer better wages to the best employees, and lower the wages on the overpaid, less deserving employees. That's how capitalism is supposed to work isn't it?

Why not what? I've answered your question already, you just refuse to acknowledge them correctly.

Why not? If you can't pay a realistic wage that corresponds with the cost of living, you have one of two problems. #1, you probably shouldn't be in business in the first place, or #2, you are overpaying somebody else.

Nobody said everybody should be making $50 an hour. Maybe that is where the confusion is.

Prices go up. But what I am saying is instead of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing the consumer to pay employees a wage that isn't making them eligible for food stamps/welfare, maybe the adjustments need to be made for the executives who are not upholding their end of the bargain.

Why do you feel it is important for the government (tax payer) to subsidize insufficient wages so billionaires can be born off of the sweat of the poor working class?

 

Why not $50? That is basic pay, for actually doing a job. The incentive to make more comes in doing their part to make a better company, ergo profit sharing. No profits, means basic pay.

 

It depends again. You don't even know the area you are attempting to deflect into.

What we need to get into is reasons why the wealthy could evade any new taxes imposed on them, but somehow don't evade the high taxes that are currently imposed on them. You just run, run, run away from that problem, and having no answer to it, you will continue to.

No one. It was merely pointed out that those of above average IQ do indeed find humor in the intellectual struggles of the shall we say downscale, one of those struggles being the conundrum ongoing here that you have now repeatedly failed to either explain or resolve.

Wow...powerful personal attack stuff there! Do you have any other tricks up your sleeve, or does that and desperate deflection about cover the range of what we can expect to see from you?

You just veered off into garbled and ungrammtical partisan nonsense there for a bit.

It is essentially flat-line dictated by the huge market inequalities between the large and powerful combines who may demand low-wage labor and the weak and unorganized individuals who may supply it. Told you Econ 101 wasn't enough.

 

There are reliable statistics on the portion of US income taxes paid by the rich, but I have not seen any comparable data for France. Can you provide such data to support your statement?

 

Here's how that works: The rich DO pay most of the taxes, but they take the money to pay those taxes from everyone else. So, if you pass a tax increase on the rich (business owners, primarily), they will increase the price of their goods and services to cover their increase in cost. See? They pay most of the taxes, but they reach deeper into YOUR pocket to do so. Hope this clears it up for you.

 

Oh BS. Companies have established what is acceptable pay. In the 60's and 70's wages from one company to another varied, just like their profits, today you get paid what the company tells you they are willing to pay, and the guy next door pays the same. That isn't based on a market adjustment that is wage fixing. The money to pay better wages is available it's just going into somebody elses pocket, and they can do it because the best government corporate money can buy subsidizes low wages, giving companies the incentive to keep wages to the bare minimum as possible.

 

Are you suggesting that US labor markets are free and competitive arenas in which all relevant market forces are brought to bear in achieving something at least near economically optimal wage rates?

 

I know I wouldn't have any problem staying under the 1 million euros/year limit OR paying 75% on anything over that amount. Please, somebody pay me that much and watch how I (*)(*)(*)(*) and moan about the taxes.

 

They can tax the rich 100%. It's not going to help them one bit. But they're too stupid to figure that out on their own.

 

The country seemed to work pretty good back in Eisenhower's day when the top bracket was 90%. At least it was working better than it is now.

 

there were many more deductions then but I see you point

 

Don't dodge. Is it always less and usually zero?

They do already. It is called off shoring and outsourcing.

Oh how cute that you dodge what you did or didnt u derstand what you wrote! Here though, a low intelligence person, (you), are attempting to use it against others in an attempt to appeal to your own authority. Classic lefter narcissism.

I can pick on your big nose and hairy ears too if you promise not to cry.

Typing on an iPhone. You can piece it together I have faith in you. Just change a letter and auto correct or two. Everyone else can figure it out.

You had tried to make a point though in what I quoted. Please explain that point.

Will you pay $400 to have your lawn mowed? $15 for a big mac? Dodging is no argument. The market has already set the price. You are arguing that it should be dictated with controls with no examples where that hasn't caused shortages or priced some services out of the market. Why don't you let the market determine price elasticity with their pricing schemes instead of dictating them. You can't even name the right price in one industry never mind all. Otherwise get specific, but I don't need some dodging leftist narrative about how smart you are as you skip specifics that would let me have a field day pointing out how dumb your ideas are.

 

The rich pay a higher % of taxes now then at that time.

Full tax rate is what the government is spending directly and the cost of the regulatory burden. Debt is just taxation through devaluation. Eisenhower had lower spending and lower regulatory costs and taxes were therefore lower for all intents and purposes.

 

lol im gonna laugh when all those millionaires jump ship.

 

Yes, I'm quite familiar with them.

You could obtain those data from Eurostat, but what would it matter? The boneheaded contentions have been for the ability of the wealthy in general to evade new taxes levied against them. The wealthy have clever accountants, you know, but seemingly these are not clever enough to advise them to evade their current significant tax burden. All quite laughable indeed. .

 

I take it you were a big supporter of Occupy Wall Street, then? The 1% stealing everything from the 99% and all?

Not really, but that's at least it's a new and different theory from the one claiming that the wealthy will simply evade payment of any new taxes laid aganst them, so points for originality.

 

A point I often have to raise -- that taxes mean very little to the wealthy. Obviously, nobody lines up to pay more than what the law requires, but the notion that either individuals or corporations go marching off from state to state or around the world over a few cents worth of difference in marginal tax rates is simply ludicrous.

 

In some ways, things were better then. The income and wealth distributions were nowhere near as skewed as they are today for instance, so few people actually paid those 90% marginal rates. Thirty years of destructive union-busting, safety-net shredding, and tax cuts for the rich have made a big difference on that front however. Our levels of inequality are now a national disgrace.

 

Then the MD who spent 8-10 years in medical schools and residencies so he could perform your heart transplant and accept the risk of a problem (you sueing him) is only worth $100,000 a year? In other words, since the median income in the US is just under $50,000 a year, that MD and what it took to make him an MD is only worth two high school graduates.

When a civil engineering company builds a bridge, there are Professional Engineers (and thats a legal title, not an academic title) who must sign the design drawings testifying the bridge is safe, the proper materials have been used in its construction, subcontrators who built the bridge did not make a mistake, and the bridge meets all state and federal standards. Those PE's are putting their professional careers and personal finances (and risking prison) on the line if the bridge fails. You think they are only worth $100,000 a year? Would you take that risk for so little?

Bill Gates changed the world. What is that worth?

Whether you like it or not, salary must be commensurate with the skill, the effort it took to develop the skill, and the responsibility required by the job.

 

Another nonsense question. Are you capable of any other kind? The claims in need of reconciling are that the wealthy can evade any new taxes imposed upon them while they at the same time somhow fail to evade the rather considerable tax burdens they already confront. Let us know when you have your first inkling of how to address that problem.

 

Some deeper discussion...

Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced.
-- CRS, Sep 2012

Pie-slicing = class warfare.